Grady Jackson, Jr. v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA On Appeal from the United States District Court for the…

BLD-121 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 07-4628
___________
GRADY JACKSON, JR.,
Appellant
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civil No. 06-cv-00154)
District Judge: Honorable Sean J. McLaughlin
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)
or Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 30, 2008
Before: MCKEE, RENDELL and SMITH, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed December 29, 2008 )
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM
Grady Jackson, Jr. appeals the District Court’s order granting appellee’s motion to
dismiss his complaint. The procedural history of this case and the details of Jackson’s
claims are well known to the parties, set forth in the District Court’s thorough opinion,

-- 1 of 2 --

In Ali, a federal prisoner who had been transferred to a new prison alleged that1
several items of property were missing from his bags.
2
and need not be discussed at length. Briefly, Jackson filed a complaint under the Federal
Tort Claims Act alleging that several items of his property went missing when he was
transferred to the Special Housing Unit. The District Court granted appellee’s motion to
dismiss and declined to exercise jurisdiction over any negligence claims arising under
state law. Jackson filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1291.
The District Court held that Bureau of Prisons officers were “law enforcement
officers” under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c). That section provides an exception to the United
States’ waiver of sovereign immunity for claims arising from the detention of property by
law enforcement officers. The Supreme Court recently held the same in Ali v. Federal
Bureau of Prisons, No. 06-9130, — S.Ct. —, 2008 WL 169359 (Jan. 22, 2008).1
Because the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for Jackson’s claims,
the District Court did not err in dismissing Jackson’s complaint for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by
the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit
I.O.P. 10.6. Appellee’s motion to stay the appeal is denied as moot.

-- 2 of 2 --